To the editor:
There have been two letters to the paper that merit a few comments. Mr. John G. Morris’ letter of Feb. 1 was polite, but misleading. The NRA’s conceptual plan does show five buildings, contrary to their claims. I am also still at a loss as to how these buildings will expand the park, what with the berm coming back 100 feet and the Ale House proposal, which will require parking as well. It’s the equivalent of squeezing an enormous amount of, shall we say, animal remnants in an undersized bag. I am also curious about the placement of the dumpsters and recycling bins — perhaps they are planning on hiring a “Beam it all up, Scotty” service?
Mr. Strand’s letter of Feb. 4 demonstrated his misguided statement that COW members are opposed to any development. It’s not the idea of development itself, it’s the buildings that are being proposed. It’s also not disrespectful to disagree with the NRA. True, they are not the devil (that’s in the details), but we should not blindly follow them as if they’re the Pied Pipers of Development — we should all be thinking outside the (brick) box.
I think Mrs. Ferlazzo summed it up at the Jan. 30 NRA meeting when she said the waterfront was the lungs of the city. Let’s not suffocate it with stifling, inflexible objects. Bookends are not needed to close it in. Mr. Karp will more than likely fulfill that when he develops his property on either side.
Oh, and yes, Mr. Strand, I intend to keep on mooing. It’s better to moo than to make an annoying, boorish sound that demonstrates a lack of knowledge.
Member, Committee for an Open waterfront, Inc.